Key Factors Promoting Rapid Implementation of Virtual Screening Modalities for the COVID-19 Pandemic Response.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 (C-19) pandemic required swift response from health care organizations to mitigate spread and impact. A large integrated health network rapidly deployed and operationalized multiple access channels to the community, allowing assessment and triage to occur virtually. These channels were characterized by swift implementation of virtual models, including asynchronous e-visits and video visits for C-19 screening. PURPOSE: (1) Evaluate implementation characteristics of C-19 screening e-visits and video visits. (2) Identify volume of C-19 screening and other care provided via e-visits and video visits. (3) Discuss future implications of expanded virtual access models. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of implementation data for C-19 screening e-visits and video visits, including operational characteristics and visit/screening volumes conducted. RESULTS: Virtual channels were implemented and rapidly expanded during the first week C-19 testing was made available. During the study period, primary care clinicians conducted 10,673 e-visits and 31,226 video visits with 9,126 and 26,009 patients, respectively. Within these 2 virtual modalities, 4,267 C-19 tests were ordered (10% of visits). Four hundred forty-eight clinicians supported 24/7 access to these virtual modalities. DISCUSSION: Given ongoing patient interest and opportunity, virtual health care services will continue to be available for an expanded number of symptoms and diagnoses.

Characteristics of Transgender Patient Cases Managed by a Toxicologist: an Analysis of the Toxicology Investigator's Consortium (ToxIC) Registry: January 2017-June 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The Toxicology Investigators Consortium (ToxIC) database, created in 2010 by the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT), compiles data recorded by medical toxicologists. In January 2017, the data field for transgender (and if transgender, male-to-female or female-to-male) was added to the ToxIC form. Little is known regarding trends in poisonings among transgender patients. We sought to review consultations managed by a bedside toxicologist and provide descriptive data in trends among types of exposures within the transgender demographic. METHODS: A retrospective ToxIC database evaluation of cases in which the patient identified as transgender were reviewed from January 2017-June 2019 and descriptive demographics reported. RESULTS: The registry contained 113 cases that involved transgender patients. Of those with complete data, 41 (36.6%) were male-to-female, 68 (60.7%) were female-to-male, and 3 (2.7%) identified as gender non-conforming. Of those with complete data, the most common reason for encounter was intentional use of a pharmaceutical drug (N = 97, 85.8%), of which 85 (87.6%) were classified as intentional pharmaceutical use intended for self-harm. Analgesics were the most common class of drugs used out of those reported (N = 24, 22%). Forty-six (90.2%) patients aged 13-18 with complete data were identified as encounters due to self-harm. Attempt at self-harm was the most common reason for intentional pharmaceutical encounter among the sample of transgender patients with complete data (N = 85, 87.6%); with female-to-male patients having an N = 53 (77.9%). CONCLUSION: Among transgender patients in the ToxIC registry, the most common primary reason for the encounter was intentional use of a pharmaceutical drug intended for self-harm. In this small cohort, there were some age and transition differences in prevalence. These findings may inform poisoning prevention practices as well as sex- and gender-based management of patients in this vulnerable population.

Designing and Evaluating a Prediabetes Shared Decision Aid.

BACKGROUND: Prediabetes is increasing in prevalence and is associated with risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and retinopathy. Clinicians have limited tools to facilitate prediabetes discussions within primary care visits. PURPOSE: 1) Develop a Patient and Stakeholder Advisory Committee (PASAC) to design, evaluate, and revise a prediabetes shared decision aid, and 2) evaluate the feasibility and experience of implementing the tool within primary care practice. METHODS: A prediabetes decision aid (double-sided infographic with decision questions) was created by a PASAC that included patients, primary care clinicians, diabetes educators, endocrinologists, and pharmacists. Five clinicians within 3 primary care practices tested the prediabetes tool with 50 adult patients with prediabetes. Patients completed 2 surveys immediately after the office visit and 6 weeks later. Clinicians and PASAC members completed a postintervention survey. RESULTS: The prediabetes shared decision aid was created through a deliberative process over 3 PASAC meetings. Ninety-six percent of patients felt the tool prepared them to decide on a diabetes prevention plan, and 100% of clinicians would use the tool again and felt the tool did not extend visit length. DISCUSSION: It was feasible to cocreate a prediabetes shared decision aid within a PASAC and implement the tool within a primary care setting. Patients and clinicians reported a prediabetes discussion, which may mitigate rates of progression to diabetes and associated complications. Future research should evaluate which of the intervention components most effectively promotes discussion of prediabetes within a primary care setting.

Exploring Health Beliefs Among Hispanic Adults with Prediabetes.

Diabetes and prediabetes are increasing in prevalence, corresponding to epidemic rates of obesity. Hispanic adults with prediabetes are 1.7 times more likely than non-Hispanic whites to progress to diabetes. We set out to understand health beliefs of Hispanic adults and, with that knowledge, facilitate tailored messaging to promote patient activation and lifestyle change. Using the Risk Perception Survey for Developing Diabetes along with demographic and lifestyle intervention interest questions, a 34-question survey was mailed to a registry of Hispanic adults with a diagnosis of prediabetes and an HbA1c between 5.7 and 6.4% (N = 414). Despite more than three-quarters of respondents (n = 92; 77%) indicating they had prior knowledge of their diagnosis, overall diabetes risk knowledge was low. A significant difference in diabetes risk knowledge was found between groups stratified by education level. High scores in personal control and worry were reported. Respondents overwhelmingly reported interest in exercise (n = 92; 77%) and healthy eating interventions (n = 60; 50%) over technology-based interventions. High levels of worry and personal control, combined with low to intermediate levels of risk knowledge, indicate an opportunity for education and activation in this community. Healthy eating and exercise programs are possible interventions that may slow the progression from prediabetes to diabetes.

Impact of Race Versus Education and Race Versus Income on Patients' Motivation to Participate in Clinical Trials.

Our study investigates whether levels of motivation and barriers to participation in clinical trials vary with patients' education and income. A self-administered survey asked outpatients to rank potential influential factors on a "0" to "4" significance scale for their motivation to participate in clinical trials. Principal component analysis (PCA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests analyzed the impact of race, education, and income on their motivation to participate. Analysis included 1841 surveys; most respondents had a high school education or some college, and listed annual income < $30,000. There was a significant interaction between race and income on our motivation scale 1 scores (p = .0261). Compared with their counterparts, subjects with less education/lower income ranked monetary compensation (p = .0420 and p < .0001, respectively) as a higher motivator. Minorities and patients with less education and lower income appear to be more influenced by their desire to please the doctor, the race and sex of the doctor, and the language spoken by the doctor being the same as theirs. For all races, education appeared to have a direct relationship with motivation to participate, except for African-Americans, whose motivation appeared to decline with more education. Income appeared to have an inverse relationship with motivation to participate for all races.

A Social Needs Assessment Tool for an Urban Latino Population.

Unmet social needs contribute significantly to health outcomes, yet they are not routinely assessed in health care settings. Identifying modifiable social needs and feasible tools to assess them may improve health and decrease costs. We conducted 18 focus groups with 115 participants, stratified by age (18-35, 36-64, and 65+), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), and language (English, Spanish) to explore priority social needs, images to depict social need categories, and acceptability of a computer-based program to identify these needs. The top three social need domains were access to care, health promoting behaviors, and family responsibilities. Participants voiced diverse social needs with notable differences across demographic groups. Both the 36-64 year old age groups and Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients were disproportionately impacted by unmet social needs. Perceptions regarding use of an interactive computer program to assess social needs varied by age. Most participants noted that a tablet computer was an acceptable venue to share social needs, though a tutorial may be needed for patients in the 65 and older group. Lastly, participants' ranking of icons were compiled to identify recognizable images of social need categories for those with literacy challenges. Unmet social needs were identified across all groups. This composite of information (priority social needs and images to represent them) will allow for creation of a tailored social need screening tool within an urban Hispanic population.

Factors Influencing Participation in Clinical Trials: Emergency Medicine vs. Other Specialties.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated factors that influence emergency medicine (EM) patients' decisions to participate in clinical trials and whether the impact of these factors differs from those of other medical specialties. METHODS: A survey was distributed in EM, family medicine (FM), infectious disease (ID), and obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN) outpatient waiting areas. Eligibility criteria included those who were 18 years of age or older, active patients on the day of the survey, and able to complete the survey without assistance. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test and ordinal logistic regression analyses to identify differences in participants' responses. RESULTS: A total of 2,893 eligible subjects were approached, and we included 1,841 surveys in the final analysis. Statistically significant differences (p≤0.009) were found for eight of the ten motivating factors between EM and one or more of the other specialties. Regardless of a patient's gender, race, and education, the relationship with their doctor was more motivating to patients seen in other specialties than to EM patients (FM [odds ratio {OR}:1.752, 95% confidence interval {CI}{1.285-2.389}], ID [OR:3.281, 95% CI{2.293-4.695}], and OB/GYN [OR:2.408, 95% CI{1.741-3.330}]). EM's rankings of "how well the research was explained" and whether "the knowledge learned would benefit others" as their top two motivating factors were similar across other specialties. All nine barriers showed statistically significant differences (p≤0.008) between EM and one or more other specialties. Participants from all specialties indicated "risk of unknown side effects" as their strongest barrier. Regardless of the patients' race, "time commitment" was considered to be more of a barrier to other specialties when compared to EM (FM [OR:1.613, 95% CI{1.218-2.136}], ID [OR:1.340, 95% CI{1.006-1.784}], or OB/GYN [OR:1.901, 95% CI{1.431-2.526}]). Among the six resources assessed that help patients decide whether to participate in a clinical trial, only one scored statistically significantly different for EM (p<0.001). EM patients ranked "having all material provided in my own language" as the most helpful resource. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences between EM patients and those of other specialties in the factors that influence their participation in clinical trials. Providing material in the patient's own language, explaining the study well, and elucidating how their participation might benefit others in the future may help to improve enrollment in EM-based clinical trials.

Racial Differences Among Factors Associated with Participation in Clinical Research Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether racial differences exist among various factors associated with patients' decision to participate in clinical research trials. METHODS: A self-administered, IRB-approved survey was utilized with inclusion criteria requiring subjects to be 18 years of age or older, having active patient status and ability to complete the survey without assistance. Subjects were asked to rate potential influential motivators, barriers, and facilitators on a "no influence" (0) to "most influence" (4) scale for participation in research that tests a new drug or device. Kruskal-Wallis testing was used to identify factors significantly associated with race. RESULTS: Analysis included 1643 surveys: 949 (57.8 %) Caucasian; 217 (13.2 %) African-American; 317 (19.3 %) Hispanic; 62 (3.8 %) Multiracial; and 98 (6.0 %) "Other" minorities. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ .02) by race were found for five out of ten motivating factors. "How well the research study is explained to me" had the highest mean value for all races except other minorities, for whom "Knowledge learned from my participation will benefit someone in the future" scored highest. "Risk of unknown side-effects" was the greatest barrier for all races. CONCLUSION: Racial differences exist not only between Caucasians and Minorities for the factors associated with their clinical trial participation, but also among different minority races themselves. To promote diversity in research, recruitment strategies for each individual race should be customized based on what matters to the target population.

Clinician-Reported Barriers to Group Visit Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Group visits have been shown to improve disease-oriented outcomes and satisfaction, yet many clinicians have not incorporated them into practice. We aimed to identify clinician-reported barriers that preclude clinicians from implementing group visits. METHODS: Primary care physicians from one practice-based research network were surveyed regarding their experience with and barriers to group visits. The survey, developed for this study, was mailed to 246 clinicians. RESULTS: Of 107 respondents (44% response rate), those in practice <10 years were significantly more likely to have had group visit experience than those with >10 years of experience. For those without prior group visit experience, training was named as the top barrier to incorporating group visits. Those with group visit experience named staffing concerns and recruitment as the top barriers to group visit implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians without prior group visit experience were less likely to endorse group visits. Addressing the modifiable barriers may enhance the incorporation of group visits into practice.

Patient-Reported Barriers and Limitations to Attending Diabetes Group Visits.

PURPOSE: Through this exploratory study, we sought to understand why group visit participation is low among adult patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Eligible study participants included adult patients with type 2 diabetes. After a pilot survey was sent to a random sample of 48 patients, the remaining 187 eligible patients were invited to complete a revised version of the survey. RESULTS: Most frequently cited reasons for not attending group visits included diabetes under control, work and/or other responsibilities, and time barriers. There was variability in the desired time for the visits, though the majority of patients preferred evening visits. While some patients reported copays as a challenge, the likelihood of attending did not decrease for this subgroup. Most patients surveyed (54%) indicated interest in diabetes group visits. CONCLUSION: Implementing strategies to address the patient-identified system barriers (eg, time, transportation, and copays) may increase participation in diabetes group visits.